Matrix Reloaded

I'd asked our favorite commenter Tin Ear to send over some matrix info on Decca opera boxes a few months ago to compare with the Londons. In the meantime I also acquired six ED1 Decca SXL opera boxes to add to the load. I'd been ruing the task of responding to this until an epiphany hit me in the last few days, what better way to settle this dispute then with Opera boxes! Here, we have usually three LPs instead of 1 all put out of the factory at the same time. That is a lot of data points for a single recording and no guarantees that all six sides will be top notch vinyl. So I got home late last night, and in less than two hours got all the raw data (including Tin Ear's) into a spreadsheet for easy review.

In the quest to settle the debate of Decca SXL versus London Blueback, we've endeavored to explain Matrix numbers before; LP Week with AQL, Special Report: Decca versus London Part 1  So if Decca Matrixes are Greek to you check it out with the pictures. We are due for a part 2 in which more of the Golden Age early stereo Decca and Londons would be compared. Vinyl1 on Audiokarma has a nice RCA thread where I dragged him into the mud on this; I am going to play all my RCA Living Stereo LPs... He states:
"This is an interesting topic.

Most of the people who say there is a big difference are experienced collectors who have held in their hands, bought, sold, played, and listened carefully to hundreds of copies of early Deccas and Londons. They will say there is a different look, a different feel, and a different sound.

I took out an played the Krips Tchaikosky 5th, Decca SLX 2109, London CS 6095. Both are the 2D/2E lacquer, so they are identical masterings, with side 1 cut by Jack Law and side 2 cut by Stan Goodall. What I hear is deeper bass and better dynamics on the Decca copy, particularly in the horns and percussion, along with greater transparency. Both records are in excellent condition, and play without any surface noise.

Why? Who knows? But Ted Lewis was notorious for his passion for cutting costs, and viewed the American market as unsophisticated and willing to pay a premium for anything marked 'Made in England'."
(By the way, I think one example of this cost cutting was to only have the US covers made in America, so luckily the London vinyl was made in England at the same factory as Decca and shipped over in similar liners.)

I can say that the "different look, a different feel" statement above is nonsense. With the opera boxes, both Decca SXL and London OSA have black labels with the FFSS logo. They are extemely similar. I expect collectors claiming this are responding to the color of the regular label on London (red) vs Decca (black). This does surely create a different look and then the feel comes in.

Update 7/28/15: Just added Nutcracker Suite to table.

I am making no listening notes on these awesome LPs as yet and just want to get this data on the site for perusal. Key at bottom of table:

Cat# Title Side 1 Side 2 Side 3 Side 4 Side 5 Side 6 SET201-3 Strauss 4E 2E 2E 1E 1E 2E OSA1319 Fledermaus 4E-1-ET-H 2E-1-ET-M 2E-2&1-ET-M 2E-1-ET-U 1E-1-ET-C 2E-2&B-ET-I SXL2170-1 Puccini 4D 1D 2M 2E SXL2170-1 La Boheme 4D-1-ET-U 1D-2&1-ET-A 1D-1-ET-K 2E-2&1-ET-UI OSA1208 4D-14&1-BC 1D-2&1-ET-H 2M-2&1-ET-U 2E-2&1-ET-BK SXL2167-9 Verdi 4E 2E 3E 3E 2E 3E OSA1313 Aida 4E-8&1-ET-BH 2E-2&B-ET-BM 2E-1-ET-G 3E-1-ET-N 3E-2B-ET-H 3E-1-ET-G SXL2150-2 Britten 6E 6E 6E 9E 5E 5E OSA1305 Peter Grimes 1E-2&1-ET-BU 2E-2&1-ET-I 3D-3&2&B-ET-M 2E-2&B-ET-I 2E-1-ET-K 2E-1-ET-I SXL2101-3 Wagner 3E 2E 3E 3E 3E 2E OSA1309 Rheingold 1E-1-RT-BG 1E-9&2&B-ET-CA 1E-2&B-RT-I 1E-1-RT-BC 1E-1-ET-UM 1E-2&B-RT-BU OSA1309 1E-4&1-ET-UA 1E-C&2&B-ET-KB 1E-2B-ET-BN 1E-1-ET-UU 1E-1-ET-CB 1E-1-ET-M SXL2031-2 Wagner 1E 3K 1E 1E OSA1203 Walkure3&2 1E-3&1-ET-UN 3K-1-RT-C 1E-3&1-RT-UG 1E-2&G-ET-UH SXL2129-1 Verdi 3E 1E 1E 1K 1K 1E SXL2129-1 Trovatore 3E-8&1-ET-A 1E-2&1-RT-BG 1E-1&4-ET-UG 1K-4&1-RT-UG 1K-1&3-ET/RT-UU 1E-8&C-ET-CC OSA1304 3E-8&1-ET-BK 1E-2&1-ET-UA 1E-G&1-ET-UH 1K-4&1-RT-UG 2E-1-ET-BB 1E-8&C-ET-CK SXL2253-5 Mascagni 2E-2&1-ET-C 2E-3&B-ET-K 1E-2&1-ET-I OSA1213 Cav Rusticana 2E-1-ET-U 2E-3&B-ET-U 1E-1-ET-C SWL8010 Tchaikovsky CS6097BB Nutcracker 1E-1-ET-BG 1E-1-ET/JT-G GrooveWB Suites 1E-4&1-JT-CI 1E-2&1-KT-UM

(For the above Mascagni, the later Decca pressings has six sides with three being for Pagliacci. The OSA is just two LPs, with the fourth side being artist highlights.)

KEY:
ex. 2E-2&1-ET-C
Here 2E is the Zal matrix number that is typically mentioned by dealers (atypical for UK dealers)
2&1 is the number of the metal mother which no one really understands
ET is the tax code which may tell the year an LP was made or recorded
C is the stamper number as in BUCKINGHAM, so the third stamper from the mother

The Zal matrix is very telling as to the sound of an LP. This corresponds to the one metal master made from a lacquer cutting. All issues with the same matrix number will sound very similar as the only possible differences are physical differences in the LP records due to the rest of the process (and playback,etc. for used/older LPs).

Sometimes up to a handful of metal mothers might be made from the metal master (Zal matrix), I'd assume 2&1 is the second one made and it easily could have been the only one used if the first was defective. The metal mothers looks like the lacquer which looks like the LP except much softer.

From these metal mothers, dozens of stampers can be made as designated with the BUCKINGHAM codes (ex. UU would be the 22, so really B is digit 1, U is 2, etc. with M being 0 or 10.)

Of course from a given stamper 1000 records might have been made and unless you have some kind of audiophile jacket with a record/serial number you don't know if you've got the first or thousandth LP made off of a stamper. One would presume some deteriation with later stampers and metal mothers. Decca was a very high quality operation so the presumption is that they knew how to get the most out of this process for their customers.

Now to really get down in the weeds. Take a look at the Trovatore and note that is has several different tax codes on the various sides. On the side with the '/' it has and ET with an R to the front of the E and another T after the ET. The earlier tax codes does seem to correspond with earlier stamper numbers. Overall the numbers are very close except for side 5 where we have different mastering engineers at the helm. Philips Stuart's excellent Decca Classical PDF on Charm shows the London came out earlier in Nov58 vs. Jun59 for the SXL. I'd assume that both of my records are not the earliest stampers (perhaps Tin Ear will let us know if his stampers are much better.)

For the Mascagni its no surprise the London has the earlier stampers since it came out in Nov60 vs Feb61 for the SXL. For La Boheme the tables are turned with the SXL out in Nov59 vs. Jan60 for the Blueback. Most of the other LPs where we don't have all the data from Tin Ear have almost identical matrix numbers and should sound close to each other.

With Peter Grimes SXL, despite coming out two months earlier in Oct59, has much later matrix numbers which will definitely sound different since they are from a different metal master. I expect with Britten being a British composer, that this is one of many LP sets made for the UK market. I had the pleasure of seeing this live last summer in Chautauqua, New York.

Update 7/28/2015:
I actually listened to the Nutcracker Suite that was added last night. My grooved white back copy (WB) on side 1 is really "faded" and while one unfamiliar with a better pressing might think it ok, it really loses it in the upper frequencies. Wiki states some of Nutcracker instrumention is the following:
Percussion:
....triangle, tambourine, castanets, tam-tam, glockenspiel, and "toy instruments" (rattle, trumpet, drum, cuckoo, quail, cymbals, and rifle)
Keyboard
celesta

All this is quite wonderous sounding on the Blueback, but really gone on the WB. By the codes on side 1 the difference is 17th stamper off first metal mother vs the WB with 35th stamper off the fourth metal mother(?)!! I wonder if we stamper numbering quite this high on true Deccas? Side 2 of my BB is not nearly as impressive as side 1 and so the WB is competitive with the 19th stamper of the 2nd mother. If I heard this kind of difference between all Decca vs London, then 10 times the prices sounds about right. The JT and KT tax codes date these to production in 1967-1972. I am surprised to see the JT at all since this is 1969-72 and grooved London/Decca should not exist, let alone bluebacks(?????). On the Blueback the JT next to the KT is really faded, so could be OT or even MT which would make more sense putting that into the 1963 or 1965. Sounds like I could find a better Blueback or even the Decca.

In conclusion, I've not sonically done any comparisons, but I will say the quite a few of these are excellent sounding, at least a 9 out of 10 or more.